Generally speaking, would you get just one version of a recording or multiple versions? For example, let's say that there were three different lengths for a song: 3:30 (7" single), 4:45 (album version) and 7:00 (12" single).

For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that money, storage space and availability of the songs are not problems. The recordings could be available on physical media such as vinyl records/CDs or they could be digital files. Also, let's assume that the recordings are all variations of the same official studio recording and that they are not bootlegs or remixes by DJs, etc.

if i buy a vinyl, i just get the regular album. but in general i only wanna listen to what i think is the original incarnation of a song. not something that has been shortened for radio play, or lengthened for dance floor play, unless of course im DJing radio or a dance club

1

first of all, funky fm music just really does it for me. Even if it's something corny like early mariah carey I can get way into the music with the fm bass and keys going on. Then, there's everything else in this song. The enigmatic title. The synth programming brings out all the right emotional responses in me: leads that remind me of thunderforce (even if the portamento isn't quite as exaggerated), chording synths that remind me of very old and charming genesis osts like super monaco (except somehow they don't sound as flimsy here), and of course a solid bass. Great original motifs, interesting harmonies, good melody, rhythm.. everything that can make a song great is here!

im unclear on the question. i get whichever version is on whichever record i bought?

Here's an example. The song "Cherish" by Kool & The Gang appears on the album "Emergency". However, there is a single version as well that is about 45 seconds shorter and has some different background sounds. Would you buy both of those tracks or just one (assuming that you liked that song)? That's what I'm getting at here.

Wyatt Riot seems to understand what I mean, re: being a "completionist" or not.

In 1971 Neil Young was touring solo and working on songs for Harvest, an album known for its studio and session musician work. It's interesting to hear what he was touring with and how the songs were before they were finalized on wax. Take this early version of "A Man Needs a Maid / Heart of Gold Suite" from the Live at Massey Hall album. Slightly different lyrics and combining two songs into something else and it's just Neil Young and a Piano, without the orchestration in the final version of "A Man Needs a Maid" or the country instruments found on the final version of "Heart of Gold".

I know you said you were only referring to studio versions of songs, but I feel this discussion could go beyond "Yes I buy maxi singles" and "No I don't buy maxi singles"

so, i was trying to look for other threads about this subject, like recording technique threads or anything like that....

my question is this, a friend can do mastering of some my music, but he says he isnt as confident in the mastering process, while other pros master with higher end equipment and more experience, however he said he can do it for free, but if i wanted to master from pros, it would be around 300 dollars to potentially 500 dollars for like a few songs or something

what you guys think? i believe mastering means adjusting the frequecies so it can be played on stereos, or like quality like you hear from songs from music radio stations like Z100 fm or something, im not sure what to expect or potentially invest

a guy in my fantasy league runs a mastering studio in portland, and its a pretty serious part of getting a record together. if you are going to put the money into pressing this recording, you definitely want to spend the money on a mastering job

if its just like, you putting links on the internet, then i wouldnt worry too much about it.

1

(it involves satan disguising himself as a bird who unlocks police cars!)

Mastering is the final phase of the whole audio engineering process. To overly simply, it involves tying everything together and bringing it up to a commercial volume standard. It's something that definitely can make or break an album/song. One of the most common problems you'll hear with mastering is over-compression, which is easiest to notice in the cymbals (you'll hear them pumping when the kick or snare hits.) There are a lot of other things that can go wrong during this process that will detract from the overall quality of the end product.

Honestly, you probably get what you pay for with this. It definitely ends up costing a bit of money, but $300 to $500 sounds about par for the course if it's a service you go to (ie, not a bro-deal.) However, most pay mastering services will give you some sort of demo of what they can do. I would ask them if you could send them one of the songs and see if they'd master that one as an example of what they're capable of. You might even just ask them to do one minute of a song. Compare that to what your buddy does and see if you'll be happy with your buddy's end-result.

There are at least a few people on the Shizz that might be willing to master it for you for a reduced cost. You might want to post in the Home Recording thread and ask if anyone would help you out. If nothing else, it will give you another example of how different end-result mastered versions can be, depending on who's doing the mastering. I'd quote you a low price myself, but I don't have enough free time before MAGfest.

And to answer your question, yes, as long as you keep the original, pre-mastered sound files, it can always be remastered later.